Don't get so cynical about the DOJ that you miss important progress in investigations

[bigtree]

48. the first sentence is demonstratably wrong

...emptywheel breaks this down in an older post:

...interviews with people like Michael Caputo or Jared Kushner required a lot more work on content acquired with covert warrants first, or because with people like Michael Cohen there was an entire financial investigation that preceded the first interview, or because DOJ was just a lot more careful to lay the groundwork with subjects of the investigation.

But the same is true here. DOJ will likely never interview Rudy on this investigation. But Lisa Monaco took steps on her first day in office that ensured that at whatever time DOJ obtained probable cause against Rudy, they had the content already privilege-reviewed. And DOJ did a lot of investigation into Sidney Powell before they started subpoenaing witnesses.

Many of the other witnesses that HPSCI interviewed long (or even just shortly) before DOJ did on Russia lied to HPSCI.

...even on the January 6 Committee, there are already multiple instances where the Committee has interviewed witnesses before DOJ has (or interviewed witnesses that DOJ never will, before charging them), but gotten less valuable testimony than if they had waited.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/07/14/how-adam-schiff-proves-that-adam-schiff-is-lying-that-it-is-unprecedented-for-congress-to-be-ahead-of-doj/

...in other words, DOJ is charged with more than telling a story like Congress, without the rebuttal and redirect that the courts provide both prosecution and defense. DOJ is challenged to put together a case that overcomes the prerogatives of the defense.

That's more complex and more nuanced than a congressional hearing- which isn't actually a true comparison to measure the progress of an investigation- which keeps the vast majority of its activities secret. That is a necessary component of convictions, protecting both defense and prosecution interests.

You can parry around the fact that the details and content of DOJ investigations are mostly unknown, except for the court appearances and witnesses speaking out about subpoenas, but that's the reality. It just is.

When you claim he waited a year, or that Cassidy Hutchinson 'shocked the DOJ into action," you're expressing opinion, not fact. DOJ has engaged in the necessary task of knocking down challenges to their investigation, first on claims of privilege that went through several court judgments before getting compliance.

Then there were the challenges by perps over evidence gathered, like phones and other communications. Those aren't something DOJ decides for themselves. Those challenges and disputes raised by the defendants and witnesses are tried in court hearings with court dates set by judges, not the DOJ.

It's easy to stand back, far back if you're watching from DU, and assume DOJ dropped the ball on this or the other, but you really don't know that. You, yourself seem unaware of major developments in the DOJ investigation BEFORE Congress even agreed to hold hearings, like the seizure of Guiliani's phone in '21, which tooks months to adjudicate in court, and even longer to crack.

You really can't make a completely cogent case about what DOJ has done, is doing, or will do from where we sit. But it's demonstrably untrue that they were inactive before Congress held their hearings.

If anything, Congress delayed DOJ by withholding witness transcripts which DOJ has to reconcile with their own evidence, as well as provide that in Discovery, like in the Oath Keeper and Proud Boy trials where the defense lawyers demanded access to it. Not to mention holding witnesses to account before grand juries about the false statements they made to Congress.

The idea that Congress was ahead of DOJ is absurd, and not supported by anything but the mistaken statements of folks like Weissmann and Schiff. This is an ongoing process that isn't going to be resolved hastily, even if the folks running things wanted it to.

It's a deliberative process of interviews, depositions, and presentations of evidence before 16 to 23 members of the grand jury, 12 needed to recommend out an indictment, and DOJ doesn't need to disband them until they're satisfied (through trial runs of their case with the juries) that they have all they need to convict.


here:

Justice Department investigators in April received phone records of key officials and aides in the Trump administration, including his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, according to two people familiar with the matter. That effort is another indicator of how expansive the Jan. 6 probe had become, well before the high-profile, televised House hearings in June and July on the subject.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/26/trump-justice-investigation-january-6/